Canadian Armed Forces

[Simon Darkshade]

I definitely get that impression as well, by virtue of the numbers - 51 units out of ~25,000 reserves for the Canadian Army, RCAF and RCN does suggest rifle companies of 150-160 men.

Even if that is the case, and they are only battalions in name, I'd suggest that allocating up to 8 companies for one battalions (take 61 Infantry Battalion of 6 CBG, for example) and 6 for the other 2 battalions of the brigade might be pushing what can be effectively commanded and supported.

Whilst it isn't a major manpower saving, being able to have a spare battalion (~600 men) could be handy, even if they would quickly be used up as replacements.

The other part of my query is why go to all the effort of putting together 10 well organised reserve brigades when they all get plundered and divided in the mobilisation process. It strikes me as sort of the opposite to what the mechanisms of mobilisation are supposed to achieve - logical structures that can quickly and efficiently increase the combat power and effectiveness of the overall force.

There might, might be scope for some thinking in the 1990s and early 2000s regarding an expansion of the regular Canadian Army from 10 infantry battalion equivalents (3 x Princess Pats, 3 x 22e, 3 x RCR, 1 x Canadian Airborne) and 3 x Armoured Regiments + 1 squadron of Royal Canadian Dragoons. I do know of the tyranny of @ history when it comes to making changes for AH stuff, but there are drivers in the period from 1989 for a very small increase.

Effectively, Canada deploys one reinforced division in Germany and the equivalent of a division in Scandinavia, then it is effectively stuffed, having one big brigade leftover at home and further unspecified units that will take months to form, equip and train/prepare. The Supplementary Reserve did have 47,000 men in @ 1995, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to postulate that the TLW Canadian Army could call on a SR force of ~32,000 men on top of the Primary Reserve, but they are well down the line. This isn't an unrealistic state of affairs, but does have the Canadians carrying merrily along what is close to an @ path when the Americans, British, French and others are all forming new reserve formations and generally reacting the circumstances of the 1990s and early 2000s that flow from the PoD and TLW specific changes.

One relatively cheap method of approaching this is having a think about the 3 armoured and 9 infantry regiments on the Supplementary Order of Battle. There would be reasonable grounds for at least some of them to be 'reactivated' during the 1990s, even if they are just to level of the ~150 men of other company sized units. That wouldn't be a panacea, but would be part of a pathway towards Canada reacting like the other NATO powers as well as them not having a barrel than empties quite so quickly.

[Bernard Woolley]

From speaking to DaveAAA, confirmed by other sources, the Primary Reserve (militia) brigades were brigades in name only. In terms of manpower, it would take at least two of them combining resources to put a single ‘service’ brigade in the field. There is a history of Canada forming ‘service’ formations from Militia units when they mobilise. Canada has all those brigades in peacetime for the same reason that the British Army maintained Type 38 tank regiments in the ‘90s in @ - to maintain historic regiments.

Australia, OTOH, has the advantage of conscription, while Canada still, at least until recently, had voluntarily recruitment.

[Louie]

I’ll be short since I have only taken a cursory look at Canada while engaged in my British Army research. Some militia Bns/Regts only could muster, at most, a trained Coy. Most units could muster a two Pl Coy or had specific roles upon mobilization, ie a Defense Pl for Bde HQ, an additional mortar section for a regular Bn etc.
IIRC (I can post the particulars later) the CAR would be reinforced by five militia units, providing enough Pls to add one each to the three Abn Cdos plus forming an ad-hoc fourth Abn Cdo.
The militia units were definitely only available as units after a long mobilization period. IRL Canada did produce a document, it is unclear if it was an aspiration or a Staff Exercise, that stated that a Corps would form consisting of one Armd Div, two Mech Divs, one Mech Bde, and one Armd Cav Bde.
I have the document and will post/upload tonight. Also in the 80’s there seems to have been a requirement to purchase up to 250 MBTs to replace Leo 1 (which stood at about 92 IIRC) the Leo 1s would be relegated to militia training in lieu of the 6x6 Cougars and given to the reformed regular Ft Garry Horse which would have been the 1 Canadian Divs Armd Cav Regt.

[Louie]

Bernard and James, sending you an email withe the Corps 86 information.

The CAR:
Queen's Own Rifles of Canada was to provide a Coy HQ and two Rifle Pls, one Pl to be attached to 3 Abn Cdo as their fourth rifle Pl, the others as nucleus of a fourth Abn Cdo
The Loyal Edmonton Regt was to provide a Pl to 2 Abn Cdo
The Royal Westminster was to provide a Pl to 2 Abn Cdo (2 Abn Cdo had only two rifle pls, a Spt Weapons Pl, and ATGW PL)
Le Regiment du Saguenay was to provide two Rifle Pls, one Pl to be attached to 1 Abn Cdo as their fourth Rifle Pl, the other as nucleus of a fourth Abn Cdo

The Rocky Mountain Rangers
- in 1980 they were to provide a Bde HQ Defence Pl
- In 1987 they reached a strength of 110 all ranks
-by 1990, strength was 150 and they had a rifle and recce pl and had a task of building up to field a Rifle Coy of two pls plus a recce Pl

[Simon Darkshade]

Thanks to both of you for the replies.

What we have is a very good account of what happened in @ and why. That makes @ sense.

However, for TLW, we do have the initial change of no end to the Cold War in 1991 followed by the compounding effects of the Theatre Weapons Treaty of 1996 and subsequent developments. I will exclude any immediate tensions of less than 6 months building up to the outbreak of war in April 2005 as there is nothing in the established narrative to suggest any sort of a 'jogging start' to mobilisation beyond the tactical level of 3rd April onwards. That gives ~8 years for any impact of decisions made in the mid-late 1990s to come to fruition, working from the basis of whatever floor the Canadian Army was reduced to before the Continuation Cold War caused any substantive peace dividend to be stillborn.

For the 51 current infantry regiments of the Primary Reserve that are being maintained on paper, a full battalion strength, even of reduced late CW strength, is obviously off the table.

The problem with the current system is:
- A very large number of subunits are attached to battalion commands. Even if they are split up into defence platoons, rifle platoons and every which way but loose, it still adds up and, it could be reasonably argued, makes for an inefficient structure
- Small ~2 platoon/60-70 men companies are too small to really do any good and just the unfortunately right size to see whole units wiped out in a nasty mortar stonk/a lucky Red airstrike. Given that some of these units are possibly going to come from relatively constrained geographic areas, this could be a recipe for some bad days

A full sized company, on the other hand, has a bit more flexibility and general utility, as well being simpler to form into field battalions. That in turn would simplify the 'round out' forces as well as allow for more use of the PR brigade structures. Why even have the lovingly named and assigned Signals, Combat Engineer and Service Battalions if there is absolutely no scope for them ever to operate as such? That is what strikes me as the waste, just as much as the infantry contingents.

What numbers would be required? Well, if we take ~60 soldiers x 51 and compared it to ~160, we get a need for an extra 5100 men.

In the 1987 Defence White Paper on p 65-66, there is discussion of the need for an increase to the size of the Reserves and their integration in a Total Force concept, with a goal of 90,000. It further goes on to talk about how the Supplementary Reserve 'must be revitalized to permit it to make up most of the balance of reserve requirements beyond the Primary Reserve.' There is no division of RCN/RCAF/Canadian Army (even if it is more accurate to employ the unified nomenclature, I tend to eschew the Hellyer era heresies), but one logical split would be 60,000 Army (both PR and SR), 20,000 RCAF and 10,000 RCN. The current Canadian Army has ~18,000 PR and 27,000 SR, whilst 1989 had 22,500 active and 15,500 reserves, which I read to mean the Primary Reserve from its context.

Whilst the main parts of the White Paper were not implemented due to 1989-1991 and all that, we have some degree of change here.

Thus, could there be a reasonable basis over the period of 1991-2004 and particularly from 1996-2004 for the following:

(a) An increase in manpower of the Total Reserve Force sufficient for the infantry regiments to field forces equivalent to conventional rifle companies
(b) Various ancillary units to be brought up to strength so that the above forces are being divided in penny packets to provide mortar support
(c) The logically put together reserve brigade groups actually having a function

Given the numbers we are talking about, that type of increase definitely wouldn't need conscription or a huge increase beyond what was already planned and forecast. Rather, it might redirect some of those numbers.

As said previously, the regular Canadian Army of TLW fields 3 regular mechanised brigade groups and the Special Service Force Brigade, reinforced by 3 reserve brigades; the equivalent of 2 divisions, even if the HQ/support/arty is only there for 1 CDN. No change there warranted or necessary.

With some small changes to the size of reserve formations, there is the capacity for this force to be supported by the 6 reserve brigades organised in a head canon in two administrative only divisions for the home defence/mobilisation base; and one beefed up strategic reserve brigade group. I'd further advocate at least consideration of the units on the Supplementary Order of Battle; the outbreak of war would see them being returned as part of the postulated increase from Primary and Supplementary Reserves and new recruits.

How many new brigades would be formed after M-Day? I should think at least two, which would in turn 'release' some of the current home defence units for possible deployment/use as battle casualty replacements.

[Louie]

Simon,

I haven’t delved too much into Canada, so I am just relaying what I have found from the IRL ORBAT. What you are saying is sensible, I can imagine the Militia Bns/Regts providing at least a Coy out West (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan) and a Coy or two in the East. The question that always bugged me though is this…
the nomenclature of the new Bns/Regts
The Second World War was the only time the Militia went to war as formed units under their own name, though some units such as The Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Highlanders had subunits from the Brockville Rifles and Prince of Wales’s Own Regt. During The Great War and during Korea, Bns were formed with personnel from many Regts. Would they be given generic title? “1 Canadian Inf Bn? Or would they become Bns of the current regular Regts….The Loyal Edmonton Regt is also 4th Bn PPCLI, would the Western Militia Regts come together and form a full 4th Bn? Would further Bns be formed, say all the Scottish lineage units come together as the 5th Bn?
How would the RCAC form its units? There is a precedent for using numbers, ie 1st Armoured Regt etc.

[Simon Darkshade]

Louie,

I've just spent 4 hours delving into 19th century Canadian Militia nomenclature for my own Dark Earth stuff, so can bring a bit of a maple syrup tinged perspective to the questions of nomenclature. What I do like to provide is the occasional bit of thought from the sideline regarding particular TLW orbats in light of what might change in particular contingencies, so I'm heartened that my gabbling thoughts came off as sensible.

Now, on nomenclature:

- The CEF drew men from Militia units, but not direct lineage. In the first wave of post WW1 amalgamations, some lineage of CEF units was perpetuated by existing or rebadged Militia regiments
- Correct on WW2 and Korea
- Should there be any scope for new Regular battalions, then they would be badged as coming from whichever was appropriate of the three Regular regiments
- If we are talking about new units formed during mobilisation, their names will be largely academic, even in the circumstances of an extended conventional war, as it would take a good 12 months to get a new unit ready from go to woe
- However, if we are looking for a general rule, all the regiments from Western Canada (specifically Alberta and Manitoba) would feed the Princess Pats; the Atlantic provinces and Ontario feed the RCR; and the Quebec francophones would feed the Royal 22nd Regiment in the manner that you suggest
- For really left field thinking, BC has sufficient population base for a regiment in its own right by the late 20th century; however, that is distinctly less likely
- There are sufficient former RCAC units to be used before getting into any new numbered ones in my view

[Louie]

Simon,

I was thinking perhaps, for regulars, The Canadian Guards (they are in the Supplementary ORBAT). I think, conservatively, if they pooled the RCAC Regts they could at least form six Regts. The Inf, perhaps 12 Bns. It’s Bernard’s story, so I’m just conjecturing on forming merged Militia Bns forming additional Bns of the regular Regts with perhaps the Atlantic Provinces forming their own (Royal New Brunswick Regt, Royal Newfoundland Regt, and Nova Scotia Highlanders since all three, IRL, had two “Bns”). Additionally the Guards Regts and Royal Regt of Canada forming a Bn of Canadian Guards. Just my thoughts.

[James1978]

I don't really have an opinion on the reserve stuff.

Though I will chime in on some of the other stuff.

I'm leery of putting too much weight on the effects of the Theater Weapons Treaty. For most of NATO, not a whole lot changes manpower/resource wise.
- Units that used Lance missile units converted to MLRS units.
- The RAF lost its non-NDB WE.177s, but the money was probably plowed into PGM programs. A little bit manpower may have been freed up.
- The FRG Pershing I force was already gone.
- The French were probably came out second best - they were able to remove their land-based IRBM force in total and not have to pay for the replacement program; the Hades SRBM troops probably mostly went to MLRS units; and the AdA probably saved a fair bit removing ASMP from service.
- The USA Army warhead custodial units were a good chunk of troops in USAEUR, ditto for custodial units in USAFE. The US was able to cancel Follow-On-To-Lance and SRAM-T.

At the same time, the "PGMs have negated the need for tactical nukes" school is probably ascendant. Which is great - if everyone actually follows through and buys the PGMs in adequate quantities.
The nuclear capability lost with the Theater Weapons Treaty never really costed the rest of NATO that much. You maintained a Lance missile or an artillery piece, and your friendly US warhead custodians helicoptered in with a warhead or shell, and fired it off. But PGMs? That comes out of YOUR money.

But for everyone else, I'm not sure how much it changed thinking. Other than the internal crackdowns and pulling out of CFE, CWC, and Open Skies, the Soviets under Yakolev pretty much played nice through 1998. No foreign adventurism, etc. As long as they are playing nice and not being aggressive, how many countries are going to go beyond mid-1980s spending levels. Some NATO members did, I'm just dubious they all would.

From my reading, at various times the Canadian government wanted to pull its forces out of West Germany, and the main reason they didn't do it was because of the diplomatic hell they'd catch from the rest of NATO.

As for Corps 86, my understanding it that it was more of staff exercise to give the HQ folks something to do and answer the question "how would be spend the money if the government gave us a blank check."

Now having said all of that, if Canada does follow through on 1980s plans into the 1990s . . . . it's worth revisiting the SSN question and if that creates a giant sucking sound on the Canadian defense budget. A USSR that is still a going concern is unlikely to stop playing under the Arctic, and plowing money into defending Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic with a high-tech capability that support shipyard jobs plays well.

[Simon Darkshade]

My meaning was to use the TWT as a marking post or waypoint, with the indications from the main story and side pieces that the conventional increases came post 1996. A bit of a case of correlation, not causation.

Some of what has occurred aligns with some of the suggestions in that lovely book on NATO mobilisation (that I went and bought several years ago before I found out that the pdf was online…) and some of it is just trying to react to the rolling changes on either side of the Iron Curtain.

There is no reason for everyone to boost their conventional forces, but there are several cases ‘in universe’ where it has been done and in this circumstance, we are postulating a small reserve increase spread out over a decade.

[James1978]

Shouldn't Merville Company, CAR be listed under units in Norway?
And where do they fit in under the peacetime ORBAT?

[delfin]

While I'm in no way shape or form an expert on this, I suspect that the Corps 86 idea that's been mentioned might have been more than a staff exercise to be honest.

Some time ago, I happened upon old official Canadian late cold war/early post-cold war-era training films on YouTube that go into the nitty gritty in organization and employment of Canadian units, from manouver units up to and including Corps command and logistics operations. YouTube user "A. Ryan" has these films on his YouTube profile: https://www.youtube.com/@A_Ryan/playlists

I doubt they bothered to spend time and resources on making dozens of training films if there wasn't a plan to use them at some point.

[Bernard Woolley]

Shouldn't Merville Company, CAR be listed under units in Norway?

It should be and I've finally remembered to add it!

And where do they fit in under the peacetime ORBAT?

It's part of the CAR in peacetime, though it regularly exercises with 5 (Br) Airborne Brigade.

[Louie]

While I'm in no way shape or form an expert on this, I suspect that the Corps 86 idea that's been mentioned might have been more than a staff exercise to be honest.

Some time ago, I happened upon old official Canadian late cold war/early post-cold war-era training films on YouTube that go into the nitty gritty in organization and employment of Canadian units, from manouver units up to and including Corps command and logistics operations. YouTube user "A. Ryan" has these films on his YouTube profile: https://www.youtube.com/@A_Ryan/playlists

I doubt they bothered to spend time and resources on making dozens of training films if there wasn't a plan to use them at some point.

Delfin,

That’s excellent! Thank you!

I can only think that only if the SSN aspiration in the 1980’s were shelved that there would be money for Corps 86. From what I can find Canada was in the market for between 200-250 MBTs to replace Leo 1s. As I stated the sources I have indicated the new MBTs would be for three Mech Bdes of 1 Div (plus WMR & training) with Leo 1s going to the FGH (then a militia regt but would be re-raised on the regular establishment as the Div Cav Regt. FGH was picked because it had more or less a generic name, ie didnt have a specific area in its title) and militia training.
I can inly imagine a Corps being formed aftwr a couple of years or long build up to war.

[Louie]

I forgot to add that Leo 2 and M1A1 was in the running, but unless the FRG gave license right for
Leo 2 to be built in Canada it would be problematic to get new builds/replacements in wartime since I am told the main Leo 2 factory was 48 hours away from being overrun by a Soviet Front.

[Jotun]

I forgot to add that Leo 2 and M1A1 was in the running, but unless the FRG gave license right for
Leo 2 to be built in Canada it would be problematic to get new builds/replacements in wartime since I am told the main Leo 2 factory was 48 hours away from being overrun by a Soviet Front.

Since the Leo 2 in the TLW world is license-produced by at least Sweden, Greece and Turkey, I do not see why Canadian companies couldn‘t be given the same license.

[James1978]

IIRC, the Leopard 2 is also produced in Spain.

Random thought re. license production . . .
At least in @, everyone in Canada with experience building armored vehicles works at the same plant in London, Ontario owned by . . . General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (previously Diesel Division, General Motors of Canada). GDLS builds the M1 tank, LAV II, and LAV III/Stryker families. The last two are built in London, Ontario. So GDLS is already established in Canada and has a relationship with the CAW.

Now in TLWverse, the AS90CAN is license built in Canada per the NATO Artillery Fact File, but the IFV and Tank fact files are silent as to whether the Warrior-25 (CAN) or Leopard 2A6 CAN are license built in Canada.

Now this may be a North American centric view (US-Canada trade), but I would suggest that if IFV and/or tank production are also license built in Canada - then one of those two is going to be of US origin. Buying new tanks, IFVs, and artillery of non-Canadian origin - and not a one being a US system strains belief. And I'm not sure Washington would see a handful of C-17s and some AH-64s as balancing the scales, or at least GDLS and FMC sure wouldn't.

[Eaglenine2]

Question Canada would in real timeline after the disbanding of 5e Groupe-Brigade du Canada stationed equipment for a Battalion Group in Norway for ACE AMF (L)? Is this a thing in the last war?

[Louie]

IIRC, after the CAST Bde was removed from Norway and had a mission to “round-out” 1 Can Div in FRG, a NATO Composite Force was being formed. I believe it was a Canadian Bn Gp, a U.S. Arty Bn/Bty, and other odds & sods. I will try to look it up.
Additionally in the late 1980’s a MEB had POMCUS equipment stored in some Norwegian caves. The rest of II MEF was scheduled to move to the UK (around Liverpool) and stage from there to Norway. Also the UK had a JTP for the movement of an U.S. Army Div (the 9th) to LANDJUT. This was changed, 9IND would go direct and the PA ARNG’s 28 IND would stage through the UK, most likely for FRG. The final plans were never settled due to Wall fall.
10 LID was a Reforger Div which had a role as SACEUR Reserve, so could go to either FRG or Norway (or anywhere else needed)

[Louie]

Forgot to mention that Canada was in discussion with the UK to set up a supply depot in the UK also, again never materialized due to Wall fall.